FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Funding for Health and Safety Course.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim from the Worker for a refund of college fees paid by him for a Health and Safety Diploma Course in UCD. Undertaking this Course would require day release for the worker on Fridays. The Worker claims that he was initially given permission from the Employer, under its Academic and Professional Training Scheme (APTS), to attend this Course but that this permission was later withdrawn by the Employer because of local industrial relations issues. The Employer claims that the Worker went ahead and enrolled in the Health and Saftery Course, ignoring the terms and conditions of the APTS.
The Worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 18th of December, 2007, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th of April, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker is a Health and Safety Representative in the Bank so it is not correct to say that the Course was not relevant to his work.
2. The Worker's APTS application was approved in writing by both Human Resources and local management.
3.This approval was subsequently withdrawn because the Worker declined to work in a manner which was not in keeping with the Registered Employment Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. According to the rules of the APTS the course of study must be relevant to the Bank's needs; the application must have the endorsement of the applicant's supervisor, and the course hours should be outside working hours.
2. The Worker's application was unsuccessful because the Course involved daytime lectures and he was unwilling to make reasonable efforts to ensure that releasing him for daytime lectures would not cause a loss of output. It should also be noted that the Course was not related to the Worker's work.
3.The Worker was fully aware of the APTS rules, yet is seeking the retrospective refund of fees for a course he embarked upon without the required prior approval of the Bank.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that substantial agreement was reached between the parties in or about May 2007 concerning the terms on which the Claimant would be funded for the Course at issue. However subsequent difficulties prevented that agreemet being implemented.
In the Court's view the current dispute should be resolved by the parties now agreeing to revive the agreement set out in the Bank's letter of 15th May 2007. Accordingly the Union should agree to the use of flexi and annual leave (as those terms are interpreted by the Bank) for the purpose of working up the time spent on the Course on an hour-for-hour basis.
On that basis the Bank should agree to provide the funding claimed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th April, 2008.______________________
JMcC.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.